Memeorandum

May 17, 2006

Keep Those Goalposts Moving

For anybody still following Jason Leopold's "scoop" that Karl Rove has been indicted (earlier discussion and mockery here) - the goalposts are being moved yet again, and may slip off below the horizon.

Mr. Leopold informed us last Saturday that Rove had already been indicted and had been given "24 hours" to "to get his affairs in order". After nothing happened on Sunday, that was modified to "24 business hours". Although somewhat unusual, "business hours" is apparently used by service centers and shipping firms and seems to mean, roughly, if a customer calls by 2PM on a business day, they will get service by 2PM the following business day.

However, additional caveats were heaped on top of that Leopold modification, and some commenters seriously suggested that, assuming an 8 hour business day, "24 business hours" means 3 business days. Wow - I had made the same suggestion, but I at least was kidding.

Whatever - Steve Leser, having chatted with Mr. Leopold, now explains that Mr. Leopold stands by his story and:

I am going to hold off further
speculation until the end of the day on Friday, May 19, or until, how
shall I put it, events obviously dictate otherwise. I thank my readers
for being patient until then.

Oh, stop - I predicted a May 19 indictment as well. Does this mean I get to share credit with Leopold for his "scoop"?

Well, I may be wrong (No, really). In which case, I await the next explanation, equivocation, or prevarication.

What I no longer expect is for the Leopold apologists to say "We were wrong."

MORE: One suggestion that is no longer operative - Rove was told he would be indicted after the next episode of "24". However - maybe Rove was told to get his affairs in order within the next 24 billable hours. Although that would normally encompass only about 10 to 20 hours of human time.

Comments

here's a comment by Jeff at the Washington Note

I have been saying for a while that there's no obvious reason why Woodward's source wouldn't be in trouble, though no one has seemed to agree with me, on right or left. But the obvious thing he - that is, Armitage - would be in trouble for would not be for the leak, but for obstruction-type charges. We know that Armitage testified in the case, and apparently testified to being a source for Novak, but failed to say anything about being Woodward's source. That didn't come out until just after Libby was indicted, when Armitage went to Fitzgerald essentially because Woodward pressured him. We also know from Woodward that Armitage did not simply forget about being his source, since twice between their June 2003 conversation and October-November 2005, when Armitage went forward to Fitzgerald, Woodward pushed Armitage about going public or anyway talked with him about their Plame conversation. One remaining question is whether Fitzgerald asked Armitage any questions where the response would have been a downright lie in omitting mention of the Woodward conversation. Either way, I suspect, Armitage may be on the hook for obstruction-type charges (whether it be perjury, false statements, and/or obstruction etc).

If Armitage is 1x2x6 - that is, Priest and Allen's source for the famous September 28, 2003 story - things really don't look so good for him, as that story looks more like an effort to direct attention to some of the other leakers and away from him. As for underlying crimes, we don't know nearly enough. But there are several possibilities. One is that there was not a concerted effort on the part of Armitage in conjunction with OVP. There were different things going on. And then once Armitage realized he might be in trouble, he executed a very effective redirection toward the White House. Another is the possibility that OVP knew Armitage was talking about this, and capitalized on that fact - this has been, I think, a working hypothesis of emptywheel's over at thenexthurrah. And finally, there's the possibility of active cooperation with OVP on Armitage's part, though I consider this the least likely possibility. But in any case, we know far too little about Armitage's role in the original leaks to say confidently what's going on in that regard.

Lurker,
Leftism is beyond politics it is a belief system,part of the host's psychological make up.Leftists are unshakably convinced of their own moral superiority that all others are wrong.
Basically,leftists have to be right

Based on the 2 NY's reports on Rove's 5th appearance it did mention he was asked about Novak contacts --since NYT was really the only report on it and it was scant it sort of fell of the radar.

Couple things confounded me.

Why would Novak be called before the GJ AFTER Woodward and how the heck does that related to the Rove case aspect?

It wouldn't, at least in a negative way to Rove. My hunch has been Rove's last appearance was as a cooperating witness -- he finalized the VNovak aspect and answered new questions raised by Woodward that had less to do about him but more about Novak and Armitage. (especially given the CW - if you think you are a target no lawyer worth his salt is going to let client go back)

Also, I would not be surprised if given this interest in Armitage if the interest also extends to Novak too..

The conflation of Christian and dominionist in Madsen's dribble leads me to believe that he is referring to Genesis 1:26 - "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

There may be literalist Christians who use the text in contra the Gaia crowd but I have not seen that verse used in that manner.

I need to find a rabbinical site which does decent English translations of the Tanakh. The KJV's use of LXX as the authoritative translation continues to engender problems.

Well, my sense of justice was always outraged by the fact that Woodward's source blocked him from testifying earlier. From the ridiculous questioning of reporters, I suspected UGO had not been properly questioned either, but the failure to give a waiver to Woodward bothered me a lot.

Yesterday, a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife. Wilson had just revealed that the CIA had sent him to Niger last year to look into the uranium claim and that he had found no evidence to back up the charge. Wilson's account touched off a political fracas over Bush's use of intelligence as he made the case for attacking Iraq.

"Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge," the senior official said of the alleged leak.

I am just grappling with Novak saying he did not know the *name* Plame on July 9th when he talked to Rove...implies that he learned it after that call from his source...which probably seemed OK not knowing UGO was blabbing it way back in mid June.

Also, saying he did not know the name when he talked to Rove --absent knowing about Woodward/UGO back in June -- made Rove look more suspicious.

If it were Armitage and he had been asked, he may be in a bind.Had it not been for the fact that Woodward twice reminded him and asked for a waiver, he might credibly have responded that he'd forgotten that came up in that interview...which after all was for a book to be published sometime later, not a news story to be done contemporaneously.

I agreed to do an interview with her the following day in my office. Although I had planned not to appear on any television shows prior to Thursday, July 24, when I was scheduled to do The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, I felt I had no choice but to try to stop the White House from continuing to push this http://politicsoftruth.com/excerpt.html>canard.

Isn't it odd that Wilson felt he had no choice but to try and stop the WH from continuing to push this canard...the same thing the WH was trying to do with Wilson...stop him from pushing his own card?

Armitage (if he truly is UGO and Woodward's source) has nothing to do with the OVP pushback. Armitage's motive was the State pushback.

Posted by Dwilkers at May 18, 2006 11:40 AM

Do not listen to Dwilkers. He is mischaracterizing what I have said, and is one of a number of commentators at Tom Maguire's place who think, ludicrously, that OVP was the victim in all of this. And even more ludicrously, some of them don't appreciate the fact that Armitage is a rock solid Republican and full-on member of the Bush administration in 2003 (and Armitage of course continues to do lots of freelance diplomatic work for the Bush administration while he avoids talking to the American press). Some of them are in utter denial about the significance of the new revelation that Cheney was passing Libby notes on Wilson's July 6 2003 op-ed article immediate after its publication detailing exactly the key piece of the hit on the Wilsons - the claim that Wilson's trip was nepotism on the part of his CIA wife. Tom Maguire himself is a different story, and had the honesty to be rather deflated by that revelation. It drove many of his regular commentators almost literally crazy when that happened.

The INR memo from June 2003 made clear that State was no more enamored of Joe Wilson than OVP.

Posted by Jeff at May 18, 2006 11:51 AM

Would someone please remind me not to be nice to lefty jerks next time I'm leaning that way?

"Late on Tuesday afternoon,* July 8*, six days before Robert Novak’s article about Valerie and me,..."Wilson’s an asshole. The CIA sent him. His wife, *Valerie*, works for the CIA. She’s a weapons of mass destruction specialist. She sent him.”

See, I don't get how Novak can say he did not know the name *Plame* on the 9th when he knew at least he knew *Valerie* on the 8th.

I suspect they led Fitz to believe he got specifics after he talked to Rove -- and again absent the Woodward June blabbing -- seemed plausible.

The entire investigation was predicated on Libby being the first to start talking about Plame and so all of Novak/UGO statements weren't scrutinized. Once Woodward says UGO was blabbing way back when, makes Novak and UGO look like they were not that honest about their contacts.

I have not read all 6543 posts since the Leopold "revelation", but the idea that Fitz will indict Rove would make sense if Fitz were really in the tank for the Dems and figured that even though there is no case against Rove, an indictment would tie Rove up for at least a year and hinder his work on the fall elections.

Jeff is a snob. He also defended Fitz use of the word *first known* in the press conference, indicating that Fitz had the foresight to know a Woodward would pop up, rather than accept Fitz had conducted a narrow predetermined investigation and believed it a true statement and so many were "utter denial about the significance of the new revelation" Wooward posed.

***Would someone please remind me not to be nice to lefty jerks next time I'm leaning that way?***

Jeff is cranky cuz it looks like Fitz is going after Armitrage and not Rove...notice how he soothes his wounds with "Armitage is a rock solid Republican and full-on member of the Bush administration in 2003"

It may be more profitable to consider the people involved who have an affinity for the oil ticks. Scowcroft, Armitage, Novak, Grossman, Powell, Wilson, Johnson et al?, all have a predilection that is unmistakeable and the State oil skunks do link up nicely with the CIA skunks.

A Venn chart of the Aspen group with an overlay of the linkage chart that TS found would provide hours of entertainment. A little additional effort would allow inclusion of most of the French government plus Kofi & C.

Not a cabal at all, just a list of people of very reasonable virtue - if you're a Saudi prince.

He should have shut down this farce or went after Val and Joe. Nothing else even remotely resembles justice. If he wanted conspiracy....it would bite him on the leg if the MSM did not love him so much.

Fitz has talked about protecting the "innocent accused" and most of us believe that is Armitage, but in the back of my mind I also seem to recall that he's talked about the need to protect gj testimony to preclude wrecking the ongoing investigation. I don't have the timeline, but perhaps his "innocent accused" statements were made before Novak and Rove's testimony which may have put RA into the target box and out of the IA one.

Patton Boggs cannot simultaneously represent Rove and another subject or target of the investigation. If they did, and both were indicted, they could end up in the position of having to cross-examine--or even give up in a plea bargain--their own client.

WHAT DOES IT SAY about the media savvy of the New Hampshire Republican Party when the first announcement of a high-profile guest speaker for one of its biggest events comes from the state Democratic Party?

State GOP officials had apparently known for a few weeks that chief White House political adviser Karl Rove would keynote their June 12 annual dinner in Manchester.

They sat on the news, allowing themselves to be scooped by state Democratic Party Chairman Kathy Sullivan. She spun it her own way and connected it to the phone-jamming case that is once again in the news this morning...

Remember the Wonk vs Gossip expanation. Jeff buys into the Tabloid Gossip gossip and not the Wonk side. He can not expand his mind beyond the gossip mongers and thinks that everyone in OVP including Libby are nothing but small-minded gossips with nothing better to do than whisper the latest rumors and run to the nearest fence to trade "dirt" with the neighbor.

And this:

Tom Maguire himself is a different story, and had the honesty to be rather deflated by that revelation. It drove many of his regular commentators almost literally crazy when that happened.

I don't know about anyone else, but what drove me nuts (and I am not invested in protecting anyone of any political bent) was Tom's capitulation to the lefty loonyness after his field trips. He still hasn't posted anything compelling to convince me as to why he had such a seed change in his own position re: Rove than the lefty talking points he got exposed to that seemed to shake his own reasoning power.

Jeff is a gossip mongerer who buys the Gossip Groupie BS vs the Wonk push back for truth.

Clarice -- one of the things that has bothered me all along about the indictment and preceeding to trial with Libby as it seems so premature. Do you believe that Fitz was convinced at the time of the indictment and press conf. that the case was solved and that there was nothing more to find?

Do you think that he acted too hastily and since so much more has been revealed that seems to change the facts surrounding Libby, why does he continue to proceed against Libby? Is it because there really is still a case there or is it a "not losing face" thing for him, or if he should proceed, say against UGO, would that affect the Libby prosecution?

It just seems he acted way to swiftly to bring the case against Libby.

Did Armitage testify before a grand jury? Did Rove's very recent testimony and Novak's come after Fitz referred to UGO as an innocent accused?

It was recent, Clarice. In one of the transcripts within the last several weeks.

However, on my first reading I wasn't sure if 'innocent accused' referred to UGO or Rove. But I messed up a couple things on my first reading anyway. But even on a second reading I was never sure when they were talking about UGO and when about Rove.

A policeman was interrogating 3 blondes who were training to become detectives. To test their skills in recognizing a suspect, he shows the first blonde a picture for 5 seconds and then hides it. “This is your suspect, how would you recognize him?”

The first blonde answers, “That’s easy, we’ll catch him fast because he only has one eye!” The policeman says, “Well… uh… that’s because the picture shows his profile.” Slightly flustered by this ridiculous response, he flashes the picture for 5 seconds at the second blonde and asks her, “This is your suspect, how would you recognize him?”

The second blonde giggles, flips her hair and says, “Ha! He’d be too easy to catch because he only has one ear!” The policeman angrily responds, “What’s the matter with you two? Of course only one eye and one ear are showing because it’s a picture of his profile! Is that the best answer you can come up with?”

Extremely frustrated at this point, he shows the picture to the third blonde and in a very testy voice asks, “This is your suspect, how would you recognize him?” He quickly adds “... think hard before giving me a stupid answer.” The blonde looks at the picture intently for a moment and says, “Hmmmm… the suspect wears contact lenses.” The policeman is surprised and speechless because he really doesn’t know himself if the suspect wears contacts or not. “Well, that’s an interesting answer… wait here for a few minutes while I check his file and I’ll get back to you on that.”

He leaves the room and goes to his office, checks the suspect’s file in his computer, and comes back with a beaming smile on his face. “Wow! I can’t believe it… it’s TRUE! The suspect does in fact wear contact lenses. Good work! How were you able to make such an astute observation?”

“That’s easy,” the blonde replied. “He can’t wear regular glasses because he only has one eye and one ear.”

Sara, I cannot fathom why he did what he did.
If Iman's report is true, however, it might explain a lot of things like:
(a) Novak's gj appearance
(b) Armitage's non-denial
(c) Novak and Armitage's public silence
(d) Why Rove remained under suspicion for so long
(e)why Libby believes he can shoe Grossman's statement about his disclosure to Libby was to deflect suspicion away from his boss.

Irony? What irony? It goes hand in hand with being perhaps the only person in all of America who has been holding out for the idea that Armitage may be in trouble with Fitzgerald!

And folks, I did not understand myself to be talking about you behind your backs. I was responding - overreacting, evidently, as I acknowledged - to Dwilkers, and I have learned that you all travel in packs. (Joking, joking - though it's been true with your forays into the lefty blogosphere, no?) So I took it for granted I was speaking to a multitude. And hey, there was near-panic when it looked like Maguire had crossed over to the dark side.

As for Armitage, the reporting has been sketchy, but he's been questioned in the investigation, I mean before he went forward to Fitzgerald after getting the push from Woodward back in October-November 2005.

WOODWARD: An excellent question. The week of the indictment I was working on something and learned another piece of this puzzle and I told Len Downie about it and I told him about the source and what had been disclosed to me and there was a sense before the indictment, well, this is kind of interesting but it's not clear what it means.

Then, the day of the indictment I read the charges against Libby and looked at the press conference by the special counsel and he said the first disclosure of all of this was on June 23rd, 2003 by Scooter Libby, the vice president's chief of staff to "New York Times" reporter Judy Miller.

I went, whoa, because I knew I had learned about this in mid- June, a week, ten days before, so then I say something is up. There's a piece that the special counsel does not have in all of this.

I then went into incredibly aggressive reporting mode and called the source the beginning of the next week and said "Do you realize when we talked about this and exactly what was said?"

And the source in this case at this moment, it's a very interesting moment in all of this, said "I have to go to the prosecutor. I have to go to the prosecutor. I have to tell the truth."

And so, I realized I was going to be dragged into this that I was the catalyst and then I asked the source "If you go to the prosecutor am I released to testify" and the source told me yes. So it is the reporting process that set all this in motion.

KING: Did you also ask -- I'm sorry. I don't mean to interrupt. Did you ask the source...

WOODWARD: No.

KING: ...then in view of that why can't I announce your name to the public?

WOODWARD: I did later in the week and the source said no.

*****

KING: OK. Your source, did the source indicate whether Mrs. Plame was an undercover agent or a desk analyst?

WOODWARD: Good question. And specifically said that -- the source did -- that she was a WMD, weapons of mass destruction, analyst. Now, I've been covering the CIA for over three decades, and analysts, except -- in fact, I don't even know of a case. Maybe there are cases. But they're not undercover. They are people who take other information and analyze it.

And so -- and if you were there at this moment in mid-June when this was said, there was no suggestion that it was sensitive, that it was secret.

KING: How did it even come up?

WOODWARD: Came up because I asked about Joe Wilson, because a few days before, my colleague at the "Washington Post," Walter Pincus, had a front-page story, saying there was an unnamed envoy -- there was no name given -- who had gone to Niger the year before to investigate for the CIA if there was some Niger-Iraq uranium deal or yellow cake deal.

I learned that that ambassador's name was Joe Wilson, which was, you know, Wilson eventually surfaced...

KING: I see.

WOODWARD: ... I guess a few weeks later. So I said to this source, long substantive interview about the road to war. You know, at the end of an interview like this, after you're doing an interview on television, you might just shoot the breeze for a little while. And so, I asked about Wilson, and he said this.

KING: I see.

WOODWARD: Most kind of off-hand.

KING: All right.

WOODWARD: One of those things. And so I -- I didn't think much of it.

KING: What did Libby say when you were with him? Was that a more complete discussion?

WOODWARD: No. Now this is what's interesting. And I had two -- one phone conversation and one long interview with Libby during this period. I had questioned lists that had hundreds of questions, one of them Joe Wilson's wife. I had no recollection at all that I asked about Joe Wilson's wife. I'm taking extensive notes. Libby said nothing about Joe Wilson's wife or about this in any way at that time.

So if he was involved in something like this, at least he decided -- when I say this, somehow outing her -- he decided not to converse with me about it. But because it's on a question list, and this is why Fitzgerald was turning over every rock.

He said, "Well, is it possible you asked -- in other words, that you conveyed to Libby that you knew Joe Wilson's wife worked in the CIA? Because it's on a question list."

And my sworn testimony is that it's possible. I certainly don't recall it, and he certainly said nothing. But after long interviews and you have long lists of questions, you can't really say, "Gee, did I ask that or that." At least, two years later, I can't. Maybe the next day I might have been able to.

Well, assuming Armitage did not tell about the Woodward conversation--either deliberately or because he forgot(and he may have Woodward says it was off hand )__he did recant his testimony which might make a perjury charge problematic. And the obstruction charge might be equally problematic for the same reason.

But if my recollection is correct that two times earlier Woodward reminded Armitage of the conversation and was unable to get Armitage's permission to reveal that conversation, the picture changes radically.

KING: Doesn't it appear a little that way though when your other source won't let it be public who he or she is? That sounds conspiratorial.

WOODWARD: It may be but I pressed that source as much as you can and I'm not going to -- if you remember back into Watergate and Mark Felt, the number two in the FBI who was the source "Deep Throat" we kept that secret for 33 years because the source insisted upon it.

Syl - I was attempting to make fun of myself. I was attempting to be - ironically - full of myself. The fact that I held that theory of Armitage in trouble makes me perhaps too quick to jump on this new news. After all, it's just one off the record comment. Though it's fine with me if it's true. So it was meant as a joke. I understood what you were saying. Sorry the joke was evidently a bad one.

"I have to go to the prosecutor. I have to go to the prosecutor. I have to tell the truth."

Which sounds like he felt all bad about Libby and had to go to fitz.

But I think Clarice explained it better? :

he did recant his testimony which might make a perjury charge problematic. And the obstruction charge might be equally problematic for the same reason.

Woodward was pushing. Woodward would never rat him out, but he's wondering if he told anyone else. In his panic he can't remember and is worried that if HE doesn't go to fitz maybe someone else will. So he has to go to fitz and has to tell the truth, or as much of it as he thinks will keep him off the hook.

"And specifically said that -- the source did -- that she was a WMD, weapons of mass destruction, analyst."

Where did Plame go to WMD School? Certainly not anywhere here.

Education

Plame is a 1985 graduate of the Pennsylvania State University, the London School of Economics and Political Science, UK, and the College of Europe, an international-relations school in Bruges, in 1995. Soon after graduation, she started working for the U.S. government in Washington D.C. During her time at Penn State, she had worked on the business side of PSU's student newspaper, The Daily Collegian. According to an October 9, 2003 Collegian article, she previously attended Lower Moreland High School in Huntingdon Valley, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. [3]

If there is any doubt left as to where the MSM mindset is, today is a perfect example. All three cable news networks, FOX, CNN, MSNBC have cut away from the Hayden confirmation hearings to cover some boring Duke rape case hearing. Tabloid gossip vs Wonk for sure.

Ok--You're Fitz..and you've got the Libby case..Your witnesses are Cooper( weak--his wife/Calibresi plotting with Wison), Miller (pure bafflegab) and Russert(seems evasive ;Mitchell everyone knew;Matthews clearly partisan and from JL's fiasco obviously getting crap info from the Wilsonistas) . Libby's screaming he didn't leak and he heard it from reporters or from officials who said they'd heard it from reporters.(Woodward says that may be true)
Grossman is also a key witness--says he told it early to Libby. (Grossman worked for Armitage and is a long time Wilson friend)

And now you've got Armitage who told, deliberately obstructed and who is Armitage's boss.

Jeff:
Talking behind our backs; how unchivalrous of you. And to think that I defended you on this blog in the past... Not good form Jeffy;how disappointing. How come you didn't say nice things about us?

But if my recollection is correct that two times earlier Woodward reminded Armitage of the conversation and was unable to get Armitage's permission to reveal that conversation, the picture changes radically.

It was Fitzgerald's press conference, when he said Libby was "THE FIRST known Official" to talk to reporters about Wilson's wife that made Woodward push his source...as in, I've got to go to the Prosecutor about you!

There was a rumor that Woodward got wind of, that he was on a Libby Defense witness list.

Jeff: Some of them are in utter denial about the significance of the new revelation that Cheney was passing Libby notes on Wilson's July 6 2003 op-ed article immediate after its publication detailing exactly the key piece of the hit on the Wilsons - the claim that Wilson's trip was nepotism on the part of his CIA wife.

For the record, Fitzgerald doesn't claim Libby saw Cheney's notes on the op-ed, nor does he claim the notes were made immediately after the op-ed was published. Both may be reasonable assumptions, but that's all they are.